Arenas's Gift To The Wizards?

[Dunkenstein]

A lawyer friend of mine sent me a link to an article on moral turpitude that seems to reinforce Casey's argument that the definition of moral turpitude is "a legal concept in the United States that refers to 'conduct that is considered contrary to community standards of justice, honesty or good morals'."

http://www.bmebsports.com/articles/9

The author of the article states that, "There is no clear line as to what constitutes moral turpitude, but there is a line, as hazy as it may be. . . The case law concerning moral turpitude suggests that, like indecency laws, it will be judged region by region. There does appear to be some consistency in the decisions though. For one, most courts have found that a felony reaches the level of moral turpitude. This is because a felony is a serious crime against society and fits well into the definition."

So based on this article, it would appear that the Wizards would have case law on their side if they decided to terminate Arenas's contract on the grounds of moral turpitude because of the fact that he was convicted of a felony.

[FGump]

I'm not disagreeing with the idea that this act is included within the broad scope of the rule's wording ...but we have to recognize that so is "ANY" (ie one time) failure, refusal, or neglect to conduct oneself according to "good sportsmanship" ...[don't blame me, that's exactly the breadth of this rule ... a one time failure to be a good sport, and you can be voided, it says]

...the point being, common sense tells us that rule is so overly broad that it undoubtedly contains items for which an attempt to void a contract would be quickly cast aside ...so in my opinion we can't just blindly say, "The rule includes this or that misdeed" and have our answer;

...instead we have to take a look at the harm caused by the actions, as well as NBA precedents for the punishments for similar actions in the past (because Arenas is entitled to the expectation and protection of being treated by the same standard as others who have technically crossed the same line in one way or another), to see what would be "reasonable" consequences to impose for this instance of unacceptable behavior.

[Modern_epic]

Gump, I don't think that Arena's situation gets compared against previous punishments from the NBA. As you said, it is Washington's right to terminate the contract. As a result, my (layperson with a couple lawyer and law school friends) understanding you would have to compare it against previous actions taken by the Wiz, not the league as a whole.

Also, I'm quite certain you are off base about the dollar amount of the contract mattering. The clause in the contract gives the Wiz the right to terminate the contract, not the right to issue a penalty. The only room for discretion there is whether or not to do it, not how much it costs. There is no wording there for the financial costs to be brought into the discussion.

While in a (perverse sort of) way it is worse for Gil than a guy on the min, he signed a contract with the same clause as a him, so that clause has to be treated the same as it would for that guy. It is basic labour law. In fact, following your logic, the length of a suspension should also depend on how much a player is being paid.

If Gil tries to argue the financials of it, I would be surprised if the PA didn't intervene against him (if they are a decent union for all their members, which I am not convinced of). They shouldn't want it to become easy for a team to waive some below average-to bad players for conduct just because Gil is a moron, which would be the precedent of such a decision.

[FGump]

ModernEpic ...in some situations (depending on the actions) I'd agree that the size of the contract is only a secondary issue in the matter. But in this situation, I'm arguing that if you weigh the size of the contract against the level of the offense, and see such a huge disparity, it's going to be transparent that the Wiz are trying to void not in spite of the size of the contract, but rather because of (and only because of) its size. That's what makes it a financial penalty imo.

As for whether the Wiz are effected by precedents set by the league, I think it would be difficult to successfully argue otherwise. The contracts are NBA contracts, the wording of the framework within them are negotiated by the league as a whole via collective bargaining, and the NBA determines discipline for infractions.

Let me add, I have no problem with the concept of a team having the right to void a contract, even if it's a large one. For example, I felt that GS would have been well within its rights to void Ellis for the moped accident. He was injured and missing essentially an entire year, with the possibility of diminished ability once he healed. In this case, I have no problem with a voiding if Arenas gets 2-3 years in jail and can't play, because then Washington is suffering significant damage. But if he gets jail time that he can serve in the summer and the only other time he misses is due to league or team imposed suspensions, I think it's going to be hard to argue that they were damaged to the degree that the extreme action of voiding a contract is required.

[Modern_epic]

Certainly, if you are going to argue that all the wiz are trying to do is use this to dump Arena's salary for unrelated reasons, then the size of the contract is a legitimate concern. But even in that case, the question still has to be: "would the wiz be waiving the player if he was a different guy on a different deal", not "is the amount of money Arena's is set to lose proportional to the offense he has committed".

I can see where you are coming from about league precedent, but I also see the Wiz having an easy time arguing that they would have dealt with someone like Stephen Jackson differently, and that they shouldn't be held to the standard set by the Pacer's or Jailblazers. Given the case that was just argued at the supreme court, this is probably a rather challenging legal question to answer.

[Mezotarkus]

The league cannot terminate the contract as they are not party to it.

Forget about the idea of the Wizards being successful voiding Arenas' contract. An arbitrator will likely look to precedents and decide there is no cause (especially if its John Feerick [Dean of Fordham University Law School] as he stated the Warriors had no cause to use Clause 16 of the Player's Uniform Contract even though Sprewell conducted what I think most reasonable people would agree was a far more morally questionable act than Arenas).

If the Wizards wanted to play hardball they could use a loophole that has never been used before as far as I know as it would likely cause them reputational harm amongst the players. The Wizards could decide not to abide by the arbitrator's decision and not pay Arenas notwithstanding the contract is not voided. There is no breaching penalty in the Player's Uniform Contract. The contract relies upon an assumption that the parties will abide by an arbitrator's decision. But there is no device to compel such abidement. Arenas' only recourse would be to terminate the contract as he could not force the Wizards to pay them through a civil court proceeding as arbitration is his only recourse and the Wizards can simply continue to not abide by subsequent arbitration proceedings. Arenas might then attempt to sue the Wizards in civil court but his prospects would be dim.

The Wizards would have to deal with the cap impact of the contract (in addition to potential luxury tax implications also) and, as I mentioned before, the reputational impact. If Arenas did not terminate the contract he would be in a legal catch 22 and also unable to sign with any other teams (even some European teams).

What I predict will eventually occur is the Wizards and Arenas will go the Celtics/Vin Baker route and agree to a buyout at a hefty discount (probably at least 50% if not more).

[FGump]

Certainly, if you are going to argue that all the wiz are trying to do is use this to dump Arena's salary for unrelated reasons, then the size of the contract is a legitimate concern. But even in that case, the question still has to be: "would the wiz be waiving the player if he was a different guy on a different deal", not "is the amount of money Arena's is set to lose proportional to the offense he has committed".

"all the wiz are trying to do is use this to dump Arena's salary for unrelated reasons"

Yes, that's the other side of the same coin - but still what I'm arguing - in the concept of having to consider the reasonableness of this idea of voiding.

If Arenas was playing like Kobe, would he be voided by WASH for this sort of action? If Arenas was making $5M a year rather than $20M, would he be voided by WASH for this sort of action? If the answer to those is clearly yes, then I don't see a problem. But when the answer is no to either or both, then it says this is a financially-motivated penalty, and then it's valid to look at whether 100M is a reasonable penalty for that level of misdeed. Which it's almost certainly not.

I can see where you are coming from about league precedent, but I also see the Wiz having an easy time arguing that they would have dealt with someone like Stephen Jackson differently, and that they shouldn't be held to the standard set by the Pacer's or Jailblazers. Given the case that was just argued at the supreme court, this is probably a rather challenging legal question to answer.

I think there'd be two arguments that override the one you gave.

a - Precedent does NOT have to be the same person making the decisions, in order for it to be considered relevant in the concept of reasonableness. That probably sounds murky, so let me illustrate what I mean ...

Say you have 10 incidents just like Arenas from around the NBA. In every one of them the player gets a 5-15 game suspension by his team/NBA, and nothing more. Then along comes Arenas and does the same thing, and his team says, "Those other teams weren't us, so you're fired without pay. You lose 5 years not 5 games." That would never stand up, because Arenas had every reason to expect (before choosing to do what he did) that the penalties for X are going to be in a similar range for him as they were for all of his NBA peers, even though it wasn't WASH likes it or not, they are part of a unified world, the NBA. What one team chooses will effect every other team, and there's no way around it.

Now if WASH wanted to argue that gun laws are more of a problem in their community, and therefore they need to see him suspended for 25 games rather than 15, that's probably arguable. But they probably have to be somewhere in the same ballpark before that sort of argument is winnable.

b - I think they'd also have a significant problem arguing "this is what we always do with guns in the locker room" If they try to void Arenas WITHOUT moving in the exact same direction on Crittenton. Right now, we don't even know if they'll try to void Arenas. Nor do we know if there's anything working on Crittenton. But it'd be hard to argue reasonableness and consistency - in defense against it just being a way to get $100M off the books - if they only do it on the big contract and don't try to do it on the small one.

[FGump]

The league cannot terminate the contract as they are not party to it.

Agree. That distinction is probably accurate.

Forget about the idea of the Wizards being successful voiding Arenas' contract. An arbitrator will likely look to precedents and decide there is no cause (especially if its John Feerick [Dean of Fordham University Law School] as he stated the Warriors had no cause to use Clause 16 of the Player's Uniform Contract even though Sprewell conducted what I think most reasonable people would agree was a far more morally questionable act than Arenas).

Agree and disagree.

I agree with the idea that if Sprewell's actions didn't get to the "moral turpitude" level, then Arenas' are even more unlikely to qualify. Disagree that Sprewell makes a good precedent in that the CBA has been amended and now the wording clearly gets Sprewell booted ... which speaks to the intent of the parties in what the meaning of the moral turpitude clause was intended to convey all along.

If the Wizards wanted to play hardball they could use a loophole that has never been used before as far as I know as it would likely cause them reputational harm amongst the players. The Wizards could decide not to abide by the arbitrator's decision and not pay Arenas notwithstanding the contract is not voided. There is no breaching penalty in the Player's Uniform Contract. The contract relies upon an assumption that the parties will abide by an arbitrator's decision. But there is no device to compel such abidement. Arenas' only recourse would be to terminate the contract as he could not force the Wizards to pay them through a civil court proceeding as arbitration is his only recourse and the Wizards can simply continue to not abide by subsequent arbitration proceedings. Arenas might then attempt to sue the Wizards in civil court but his prospects would be dim.

The Wizards would have to deal with the cap impact of the contract (in addition to potential luxury tax implications also) and, as I mentioned before, the reputational impact. If Arenas did not terminate the contract he would be in a legal catch 22 and also unable to sign with any other teams (even some European teams).

Disagree completely. This bizarre and extreme approach has absolutely no chance of being used, because it would be a certain disaster for the Wiz on so many levels. The courts would eat the owners alive over such a failure to pay an employee, and such an attempt would most likely cost them their NBA franchise. Just not gonna happen.

What I predict will eventually occur is the Wizards and Arenas will go the Celtics/Vin Baker route and agree to a buyout at a hefty discount (probably at least 50% if not more).

Could be suggested but I doubt it will happen.

First it would take two parties to agree. I think WASH would love to explore that solution, but Gil would simply say no.

Second, in Baker's case, that solution came only after a whole series of transgressions. He was constantly in and out of trouble, had been suspended numerous times, and still was continuing to violate rules. In contrast, this is the first problem with Arenas, a situation that calls for a penalty of some sort (currently, suspension) and then life goes on if he walks the straight and narrow.

[Mezotarkus]

If the Wizards wanted to play hardball they could use a loophole that has never been used before as far as I know as it would likely cause them reputational harm amongst the players. The Wizards could decide not to abide by the arbitrator's decision and not pay Arenas notwithstanding the contract is not voided. There is no breaching penalty in the Player's Uniform Contract. The contract relies upon an assumption that the parties will abide by an arbitrator's decision. But there is no device to compel such abidement. Arenas' only recourse would be to terminate the contract as he could not force the Wizards to pay them through a civil court proceeding as arbitration is his only recourse and the Wizards can simply continue to not abide by subsequent arbitration proceedings. Arenas might then attempt to sue the Wizards in civil court but his prospects would be dim.

The Wizards would have to deal with the cap impact of the contract (in addition to potential luxury tax implications also) and, as I mentioned before, the reputational impact. If Arenas did not terminate the contract he would be in a legal catch 22 and also unable to sign with any other teams (even some European teams).

Disagree completely. This bizarre and extreme approach has absolutely no chance of being used, because it would be a certain disaster for the Wiz on so many levels. The courts would eat the owners alive over such a failure to pay an employee, and such an attempt would most likely cost them their NBA franchise. Just not gonna happen.

As I mentioned, the Wizards would suffer a significant reputational hit if they took this route and that its hypothetically feasible but not practical. However, I can tell you from the language of the Uniform Player's Contract eveything I said is accurate. The players agreed to forego civil proceedings in favor of arbitration but they, and this is a huge loophole in the overall arrangement betwen the league and the players, did not provide compulsion for compliance with the arbitrator's decision or penalties if either side did not do so. Thus, the courts would have zero say in the matter. Arenas could not even get to the courts until he terminated his contract and once he terminated his contract he would have no standing to file suit against the Wizards. At least, the Wizards would scare Arenas ito settling with a significant discounted buyout.

[Mezotarkus]

What I predict will eventually occur is the Wizards and Arenas will go the Celtics/Vin Baker route and agree to a buyout at a hefty discount (probably at least 50% if not more).

Could be suggested but I doubt it will happen.

First it would take two parties to agree. I think WASH would love to explore that solution, but Gil would simply say no.

Second, in Baker's case, that solution came only after a whole series of transgressions. He was constantly in and out of trouble, had been suspended numerous times, and still was continuing to violate rules. In contrast, this is the first problem with Arenas, a situation that calls for a penalty of some sort (currently, suspension) and then life goes on if he walks the straight and narrow.

Gil has some risk on the contract voiding issue and some exposure on other fronts including the loophole I described earlier in the thread. This in uncharted territory - a player who has committed significant transgressions and is owed $80 million. The Wizards can't tolerate paying $80 million for the next 4 years for a player that is not playing and no team is going to take on Arenas' contract. A buyout allows Arenas to show some contrition salvaging some of his image, still get alot of money, be a stand up guy for the Wizards franchise and its fans and start fresh somewhere else.

[casey]

If Arenas was playing like Kobe, would he be voided by WASH for this sort of action? If Arenas was making $5M a year rather than $20M, would he be voided by WASH for this sort of action? If the answer to those is clearly yes, then I don't see a problem. But when the answer is no to either or both, then it says this is a financially-motivated penalty, and then it's valid to look at whether 100M is a reasonable penalty for that level of misdeed. Which it's almost certainly not.

I completely disagree with this logic. A team isn't going to necessarily void a players contract every time they are able to. Determining whether they are able to void the contract should have nothing to do with the players salary. But then actually making the decision to void it will absolutely have something to do with the salary. Why wouldn't it? They are two separate questions. Can they void the contract? Will they void the contract?

[Modern_epic]

Certainly, if you are going to argue that all the wiz are trying to do is use this to dump Arena's salary for unrelated reasons, then the size of the contract is a legitimate concern. But even in that case, the question still has to be: "would the wiz be waiving the player if he was a different guy on a different deal", not "is the amount of money Arena's is set to lose proportional to the offense he has committed".

"all the wiz are trying to do is use this to dump Arena's salary for unrelated reasons"

Yes, that's the other side of the same coin - but still what I'm arguing - in the concept of having to consider the reasonableness of this idea of voiding.

If Arenas was playing like Kobe, would he be voided by WASH for this sort of action? If Arenas was making $5M a year rather than $20M, would he be voided by WASH for this sort of action? If the answer to those is clearly yes, then I don't see a problem. But when the answer is no to either or both, then it says this is a financially-motivated penalty, and then it's valid to look at whether 100M is a reasonable penalty for that level of misdeed. Which it's almost certainly not.

See, I still disagree here. The only bar the wiz are required to meet in the contract is that they hold the act Gil has committed as a violation of that section. To my knowledge of labour law, what the Wiz have to prove is that knowing nothing else about the player, they would cut them for this action. Any consideration of skill or contract creates an unequal application of this standard clause.

Imagine this was a unionized factory, not the NBA. Can you guess what a union would do if the company they fired an employee they didn't like for a contract violation that an employee they considered better had also done without firing? The union would almost certainly eat the company for breakfast in arb. The standard for termination has to be blind to skill (as long as it is not a contributing factor termination, which it can't be in this situation) and money (ditto) here.

(And the more I type about it, the more certain I am the Wizards can't do this.)

I can see where you are coming from about league precedent, but I also see the Wiz having an easy time arguing that they would have dealt with someone like Stephen Jackson differently, and that they shouldn't be held to the standard set by the Pacer's or Jailblazers. Given the case that was just argued at the supreme court, this is probably a rather challenging legal question to answer.

I think there'd be two arguments that override the one you gave.

a - Precedent does NOT have to be the same person making the decisions, in order for it to be considered relevant in the concept of reasonableness. That probably sounds murky, so let me illustrate what I mean ...

Say you have 10 incidents just like Arenas from around the NBA. In every one of them the player gets a 5-15 game suspension by his team/NBA, and nothing more. Then along comes Arenas and does the same thing, and his team says, "Those other teams weren't us, so you're fired without pay. You lose 5 years not 5 games." That would never stand up, because Arenas had every reason to expect (before choosing to do what he did) that the penalties for X are going to be in a similar range for him as they were for all of his NBA peers, even though it wasn't WASH likes it or not, they are part of a unified world, the NBA. What one team chooses will effect every other team, and there's no way around it.

Now if WASH wanted to argue that gun laws are more of a problem in their community, and therefore they need to see him suspended for 25 games rather than 15, that's probably arguable. But they probably have to be somewhere in the same ballpark before that sort of argument is winnable.

b - I think they'd also have a significant problem arguing "this is what we always do with guns in the locker room" If they try to void Arenas WITHOUT moving in the exact same direction on Crittenton. Right now, we don't even know if they'll try to void Arenas. Nor do we know if there's anything working on Crittenton. But it'd be hard to argue reasonableness and consistency - in defense against it just being a way to get $100M off the books - if they only do it on the big contract and don't try to do it on the small one.

I understand that precedent doesn't have to be the same person, but it does have to be the same organization. And the question is what 'the organization' here is. When it comes to suspensions, they can be leveled by the team or the league. But as you have pointed out, this is using an untested clause that is only executable by the team. There is no guarantee that the standard this clause is held to is the league standard, as it is not a right that can be exercised collectively. And even if it is, there is no prior direct precedent. This recourse is a different section of the standard player contract, with different criteria for using it. So the suspension penalties may not be related, depnding on how the judge reads the CBA. There may be something in american needle v. nfl that sheds some light on this, depending on how broadly the court writes its opinion.

As to b- I agree 100%. As I mentioned, I don't think they would be able to argue they aren't abusing the clause. The only reason I think they have any hope is that it is DC, and unless they find out Crittenton didn't actually have a gun too (or maybe that his side was pure self defence), they would undoubtedly have to do the same thing to him.

[FGump]

I can tell you from the language of the Uniform Player's Contract eveything I said is accurate.
-- ok, I'm not going to take time to go through the fine print, but if you say so...

The players agreed to forego civil proceedings in favor of arbitration but they, and this is a huge loophole in the overall arrangement betwen the league and the players, did not provide compulsion for compliance with the arbitrator's decision or penalties if either side did not do so.
- Pure nonsense ...there are multiple further avenues available to the player, union, and league if a team does not live up to its responsibilities in a contract with a player as determined by the designated arbitrator ...just because they aren't spelled out in the individual contract doesn't mean they don't exist in the greater framework of collective bargaining law, the NBA Constitution and ByLaws, and contract law.

Thus, the courts would have zero say in the matter.
- Again pure nonsense. There is no such thing as a situation that isn't under the purview of the courts on an umbrella basis.

Arenas could not even get to the courts until he terminated his contract and once he terminated his contract he would have no standing to file suit against the Wizards.
- More pure nonsense.

At least, the Wizards would scare Arenas ito settling with a significant discounted buyout.
- A worthless conclusion in that it's based on a whole string of flawed premises

Gil has some risk on the contract voiding issue
Perhaps. We'll wait and see if it's even tested. I have doubts they'll even try.

...and some exposure on other fronts including the loophole I described earlier in the thread.
Nonsense.

This in uncharted territory - a player who has committed significant transgressions and is owed $80 million. The Wizards can't tolerate paying $80 million for the next 4 years for a player that is not playing and no team is going to take on Arenas' contract.
Agree that the Wiz have big problems here, but that's life in the big time. However they aren't the first team to be over the barrel with a player whom they owe a ton of money to. Dallas waived Finely when the new CBA changed the rules and virtually forced them to do so for tax purposes, and had to pay him the full 50+M he was owed.

The fact the Wiz can't afford that downside is part of what is likely to push them to do something rational (like allow him to come back and play once he's served his time) rather than pull some sort of Armageddon-ish stunt that's more likely to blow up in their face than any other result.

Any middle ground resolution will take two to tango ... which means the Wiz be willing to eat a boatload of money ...or else, play nice, keep him, and try to make something work out.

A buyout allows Arenas to show some contrition salvaging some of his image, still get alot of money, be a stand up guy for the Wizards franchise and its fans and start fresh somewhere else.
Arenas has 100M reasons to do his time, show contrition, and come back and play. He doesn't owe the Wiz somehow beyond that, especially if they start trying to sabotage his ability to fulfill the rest of his contract, unless it's voided by valid means.

[FGump]

See, I still disagree here. The only bar the wiz are required to meet in the contract is that they hold the act Gil has committed as a violation of that section. To my knowledge of labour law, what the Wiz have to prove is that knowing nothing else about the player, they would cut them for this action. Any consideration of skill or contract creates an unequal application of this standard clause.

Imagine this was a unionized factory, not the NBA. Can you guess what a union would do if the company they fired an employee they didn't like for a contract violation that an employee they considered better had also done without firing? The union would almost certainly eat the company for breakfast in arb. The standard for termination has to be blind to skill (as long as it is not a contributing factor termination, which it can't be in this situation) and money (ditto) here.

(And the more I type about it, the more certain I am the Wizards can't do this.)

I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with. What you explained there is the same thing I was saying, that it takes not only a situation for Arenas stepping over the line, but also has to meet a standard of equitability, ie in other situations where a similar level of misdeed has occurred the same sort of penalty is being applied to others regardless of their skill or contractual obligation.

I understand that precedent doesn't have to be the same person, but it does have to be the same organization.

I understand the team-vs-league angle, but I think WASH would have a next-to-impossible time enforcing an extremely different strictness and penalties than existed for the other 29 teams that are part of the very same world in which he performs, even if WASH was shown to be a separate entity within that world. The CBA is negotiated by the NBA with the Union not by team, the contracts are uniform NBA contracts, and his contract is assignable without his consent to any one of 29 other teams.

[Mezotarkus]

I can tell you from the language of the Uniform Player's Contract eveything I said is accurate.
-- ok, I'm not going to take time to go through the fine print, but if you say so...

The players agreed to forego civil proceedings in favor of arbitration but they, and this is a huge loophole in the overall arrangement betwen the league and the players, did not provide compulsion for compliance with the arbitrator's decision or penalties if either side did not do so.
- Pure nonsense ...there are multiple further avenues available to the player, union, and league if a team does not live up to its responsibilities in a contract with a player as determined by the designated arbitrator ...just because they aren't spelled out in the individual contract doesn't mean they don't exist in the greater framework of collective bargaining law, the NBA Constitution and ByLaws, and contract law.

Thus, the courts would have zero say in the matter.
- Again pure nonsense. There is no such thing as a situation that isn't under the purview of the courts on an umbrella basis.

Arenas could not even get to the courts until he terminated his contract and once he terminated his contract he would have no standing to file suit against the Wizards.
- More pure nonsense.

At least, the Wizards would scare Arenas ito settling with a significant discounted buyout.
- A worthless conclusion in that it's based on a whole string of flawed premises

Gil has some risk on the contract voiding issue
Perhaps. We'll wait and see if it's even tested. I have doubts they'll even try.

...and some exposure on other fronts including the loophole I described earlier in the thread.
Nonsense.

Before you offer up anymore "nonsense" responses show me the legal basis under New York state law how a party that agrees to forego other remedies in favor of arbitration over a bilateral contract can, if it is unhappy with the arbitration results, terminate the contract unilaterally and then sue in civil court for rights granted under the contract the party just unilaterally terminated? The party can't. The party would have no standing. This is the flaw in the current Uniform Player's Contract. The NBAPA is not that anxious about it because of the reputational risk a team would take by going this route. But the option is theoretically there. If your reactions thus far are based on what you think ought to be the case then I suggest you actually get familiar with the Uniform Player's Contract language and New York state contract law before making any further statements on this.

[FGump]

Mezo, the situation you described is not one of being "unhappy with the arbitration results" and that's the key problem with your scenario that you've chosen to ignore.

As long as the Wiz abide by the arbitration results, they are on protected ground. I've never said otherwise. But that's not the scenario you painted here.

Instead the situation you described went in a far different direction, in which the arbitrator said do this-or-that and the WIz simply refused to comply ...and that is what would put the Wiz in a world outside the "protection" provided by the CBA and the arbitration it prescribes ... and should they go there, they've just opened the door to the courts having jurisdiction.

In addition, in your nonsensical scenario you have blindly ignored the relationship between the NBA and the Wiz as if the Wiz are able to operate in whatever fashion they choose without peril from the league. But they are not a corporation free to make their own choices in any way they choose and still stay in business. Before this thing got very far with a refusal to pay a player what he's owed and all the chaos that would create for the league and its players, they'd undoubtedly have their franchise stripped from them for the harm they're causing to the league ...and if you don't think that's easy, possible, and would serve as an effective deterrent, you aren't paying attention.

[Dunkenstein]

This is just like an episode of "Law and Order". Two lawyers arguing a point before a judge in chambers. Isn't this about the time where the judge interrupts and says, "Very well, gentlemen. I'll read your briefs and make a decision in the morning."

[Modern_epic]

See, I still disagree here. The only bar the wiz are required to meet in the contract is that they hold the act Gil has committed as a violation of that section. To my knowledge of labour law, what the Wiz have to prove is that knowing nothing else about the player, they would cut them for this action. Any consideration of skill or contract creates an unequal application of this standard clause.

Imagine this was a unionized factory, not the NBA. Can you guess what a union would do if the company they fired an employee they didn't like for a contract violation that an employee they considered better had also done without firing? The union would almost certainly eat the company for breakfast in arb. The standard for termination has to be blind to skill (as long as it is not a contributing factor termination, which it can't be in this situation) and money (ditto) here.

(And the more I type about it, the more certain I am the Wizards can't do this.)

I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with. What you explained there is the same thing I was saying, that it takes not only a situation for Arenas stepping over the line, but also has to meet a standard of equitability, ie in other situations where a similar level of misdeed has occurred the same sort of penalty is being applied to others regardless of their skill or contractual obligation.

The way I read it, I'm disagreeing with what the penalty is. What I get out of your writing, is that you hold Arena's penalty is the money he will lose. I'm saying that the penalty can only be construed to be contract termination, regardless of the specifics of the contract. If I'm reading you wrong, I apologize.

I understand that precedent doesn't have to be the same person, but it does have to be the same organization.

I understand the team-vs-league angle, but I think WASH would have a next-to-impossible time enforcing an extremely different strictness and penalties than existed for the other 29 teams that are part of the very same world in which he performs, even if WASH was shown to be a separate entity within that world. The CBA is negotiated by the NBA with the Union not by team, the contracts are uniform NBA contracts, and his contract is assignable without his consent to any one of 29 other teams.

I don't think they can entirely avoid precedent, but I do think they can convincingly argue it as considerably different clause than a suspension, and so precedent should be less binding. I think the Wiz would have a hard time with this also, but mostly because they have an obvious other reason to want the contract voided. If this was the Raps and Chris Bosh pulled a gun on Marco Bellinini, if the Raps went to void, they might be able to argument precedent isn't important, as the team and country consider this differently than others, even with Gil not being waived as prior precedent.

But maybe I just read too much about the supreme court ripping up the NFL lawyer in that case.

[Mezotarkus]

Mezo, the situation you described is not one of being "unhappy with the arbitration results" and that's the key problem with your scenario that you've chosen to ignore.

As long as the Wiz abide by the arbitration results, they are on protected ground. I've never said otherwise. But that's not the scenario you painted here.

Instead the situation you described went in a far different direction, in which the arbitrator said do this-or-that and the WIz simply refused to comply ...and that is what would put the Wiz in a world outside the "protection" provided by the CBA and the arbitration it prescribes ... and should they go there, they've just opened the door to the courts having jurisdiction.

That sounds nice. You basically just reiterated your "nonsense" 'argument'. But you don't seem to understand contract law. Come back when you do.

In addition, in your nonsensical scenario you have blindly ignored the relationship between the NBA and the Wiz as if the Wiz are able to operate in whatever fashion they choose without peril from the league. But they are not a corporation free to make their own choices in any way they choose and still stay in business. Before this thing got very far with a refusal to pay a player what he's owed and all the chaos that would create for the league and its players, they'd undoubtedly have their franchise stripped from them for the harm they're causing to the league ...and if you don't think that's easy, possible, and would serve as an effective deterrent, you aren't paying attention.

Nothing in this paragraph speaks to whether the Wizards have the legal ability to proceed as I mentioned. They do. However, as I said, such an approach would present several risks for the Wizards franchise. You obviously agree with me on that point.

[Mezotarkus]

This is just like an episode of "Law and Order". Two lawyers arguing a point before a judge in chambers. Isn't this about the time where the judge interrupts and says, "Very well, gentlemen. I'll read your briefs and make a decision in the morning."

I'm guessing between FGump and I one of us has never seen the inside of a judge's chambers.